George

"A standard cliché reciprocated by “the evils perpetrated by Christians did not spring from theism (or Christianity) but from motivations external to their religion”."

Rubbish.

One has nothing to do with the other. The church has a long history of religiously inspired torture and war mongering.

Religion needs reinventing. Why? Because as a society we need a structure and system for discussing what is and is not ethical and moral about human behaviour.

I see all religious stories and symbols as a vehicle for discussing good and evil, just and unjust, right and wrong.

Of course, a new system of religion needs to eschew creationism, matters of which are best left to science.

If only we would put our minds to the process of religion rather than the content such as the bible.

The process is about perfecting ourselves and being all that is good for ourselves and our community. This process is what needs study and instruction or guidance.

The content will vary from culture to culture.

We need to talk about a new vision in order to move forward. Without that vision we are stuck in the past.

George
You are comparing with apples and oranges. The teaching of English and language is not about 'reign supreme' as in the case of ideology. Language exists and there are is no debate. Religion is a whole different ball game.

I don't think I stated that there is a formal policy of indoctrination in schools. It is my own opinion that religious instruction is indoctrination. It is not an insult, we are all indoctrinated from birth one way or another. Religion depends on indoctrination otherwise a particular bias would not take hold enmasse.

There is nothing harsh about this, it is just a reality. Religious folk are not the only sector with rights and I am not sure why modern governments have cow-towed to the Christian lobby in recent years. I suspect it is in reaction to strong pressure groups possibly due to the perceived threat of Islam.

I am not arguing that atheism be taught, enforced or discussed either as this would not be fair. My argument is more looking towards harmony by not allowing the schoolyard to become yet another boiling pot for disharmony and intolerance or open slather for various religious dogma (specifically in respect to Chaplains and RI).

George & Others,

Of course someone being of a particular religion when counseling children is an obstacle.

If people believe the rubbish dished up in ancient flawed texts they are hardly in a position to council anyone. Many would argue they need the counseling and deprogramming.

Are you really suggesting that a person's religious persuasion doesn't affect their thinking or interpretation of a given situation? Of course it does!

Where were all the reports to the police about child abuse in religious institutions in the past? Where was the open accountable counceling?

You also seem to misunderstand the fundamental processes of indoctrination. Why would you find the religiously indoctrinated, counceling others, as a reasonable proposition?

Pelican explains it very well.

I also have a problem with athiests though. It seems to me that to state categorically that GOD doesn't exist is as arrogant as to say he does.

Maybe it is the word GOD that is so overused and so misunderstood. If there is a universal energy that gives us a spiritual side, it certainly doesn't cure people.

Praying to it is demonstrably a waste of time. If praying worked there would be no starving people. Rwanda or the holocaust wouldn't have happened and people wouldn't die horrid miserable deaths.

The real problem with Chaplains in schools is that they are already unqualified by their GODly beliefs.

How anyone could even think that teaching atheism in schools is possible astounds me. It is almost as ludicrous as having a Masters in Religion as a qualification.

Surely it should be Masters of Improbable History - Religious Mythology

I guess it proves that Universities will teach anything for a buck!

If my very simple questions on religion cause those with strong religious convictions to shrink and not respond then it doesn't say much for their knowledge or conviction.

As I have said elsewhere...To believe that an allegedly loving GOD could murder innocent children and believe the likes of Moses are heroes is the ultimate in religious naivety and probably the ultimate blasphemy if a GOD exists.

Can God really be that dumb?

Pelican,
Sorry, it is apparently my fault that you did not understood what I meant. I agree with you in principle except that not only none of the religions should have privileges over other world-views, but that the same should hold for any world-view (or philosophy-of-life) presented directly (through RE or an irreligious person teaching "religious studies") or indirectly (when teaching subjects like history, ethics etc).

I conceded that this principle did not work very well when Christians were in the majority, expressing doubts whether it will work with a group of world-views based on secular humanism. By privileges I mean a situation when all the others are referred to as infidels, pagans, heretics or irrational, superstitious, etc, and education into alternative world-views called child abuse in sweeping accusations.

I am not familiar with the situation in Queensland, and whether, or under what conditions resident counsellors/chaplains should be appointed at all.

>> we are all indoctrinated from birth one way or another <<
If you mean also those educated into world-views based on atheism or secular humanism, then the word is indeed harmless, and expresses the fact that small children must be instructed in a way different from adults. I suggested the same understanding of the word - by admitting that when I was five I was also “indoctrinated“ by my childhood environment into speaking three languages that were not my choice - but was harshly rebuked by most atheists on this OLO who insisted on its pejorative meaning.

Shadow Minister,
Condemning an institution for a “history of ... torture and war mongering” is like condemning a medical practitioner for performing amputations without any anaesthetic. In both cases it depends on what century the “perpetrator” - institution or practitioner - belonged to, whether an alternative existed. Today such a practitioner would be prosecuted, in the Middle Ages that was the only available practice. Something similar about the Church that eventually gave birth - as painful as it was - to Enlightenment (it was not imposed on Christendom from the outside, from another planet or civilisation).

George, you state:

<< history of ... torture and war mongering” is like condemning a medical practitioner for performing amputations without any anaesthetic. In both cases it depends on what century the “perpetrator” - institution or practitioner - belonged to, whether an alternative existed.>>

So torture and war mongering wasn't really torture and war mongering because it was in a different era, when people thought beating the crap out of each other wasn't really bad at all.

Interesting logic, George, Jesus would be proud of you.